Obama and the Democratic Party's War on Public Education
By: PriscillaQOB Sunday August 30, 2009 6:59 am
For those who might want to think about something other than health care reform for a few moments I would like to sound a warning bell about the Obama administration's moves toward education "reform" as embodied by our current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. And it is fitting as a memorial to Senator Kennedy, who worked hard to improve public education throughout his career.
A not-so-brief background: during the campaign Obama chose Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond as his education advisor. Prof. Darling-Hammond was seen as the best candidate by teachers for the post of Secretary of Education and both national teacher's unions, the NEA and the AFT, worked overtime to help get Obama elected. Then things turned political and Prof. Darling-Hammond was a victim of a village smear campaign. Gerry Bracey wrote about that here, at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey/the-hatchet-job-on-linda_b_155104.html
So our new Education Secretary became Arne Duncan, Obama's basketball pal from Chicago who was in charge of the Chicago school "reform" movement. Mr. Duncan, a hero to the right and a question mark to the left, had no education experience. He talks a confusing talk and appears to listen but he seems to be a corporatist who eagerly embraces the corporate "reform" movement. Duncan's history can be found here:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/arne233.shtml
and here:
http://edjustice.blogspot.com/2009/07/arne-duncan-and-chicago-schools.html
Duncan's main approach, taken directly from the conservative Republican agenda and backed by the DLC, was to close failing neighborhood schools, fire teachers and principals, and encourage the siphoning of public school funds into charter schools that would be free from the constraints of teacher's union contracts, bureaucratic requirements, and accountability of test-taking. The conservatives were thrilled beyond belief. Problem was, it didn't work. It doesn't work. Several studies cited in the above articles show that urban charter schools do no better, in general, and often worse, than public schools when they are actually held to the same accountability in test-taking. Some charter schools do as well as or better than public schools, sometimes because of selective admissions or other requirements.
And kow-towing to Joe "You Lie!" Wilson has really racked up some points with the Hispanic Caucus and others:
Obama takes heat from other side of immigrant healthcare debate
He suggests that those here illegally be kept from taking part in an insurance exchange set up by the government. Some on the left say that's bad policy that panders to the likes of Joe Wilson.
By Peter Wallsten
September 16, 2009
Trying to quell a conservative uproar over his healthcare agenda, President Obama has proposed barring illegal immigrants from a possible government-arranged health insurance marketplace -- even if the immigrants pay with their own money.
The move has surprised some of Obama's fellow Democrats and infuriated immigrant advocates, who on Tuesday attacked the position as political pandering and bad policy....
But several White House allies said Tuesday that the policy was a shift designed to position Obama to the right of his critics.
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), an early Obama ally, said Tuesday that members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus were reevaluating their support for the healthcare overhaul.
Wilson's outburst, Gutierrez said, was "said in a mean, ugly way. And what the president did was create an even meaner, uglier public policy to accompany it."
Congress is working on plans to give low- and moderate-income people subsidies to buy health insurance in an effort to reduce the number of uninsured in the country.
None of the measures would allow illegal immigrants to receive subsidies.
Obama's proposal, circulated in an e-mail to reporters, would go further, barring undocumented immigrants from an insurance marketplace designed to make it easier for consumers to find coverage.
Because nothing says "health care reform" like a sick busboy!
Speaking of which, what could be more popular than knifing the public option:
Poll: 8 in 10 Back Public Option
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 02:49:10 PM EST
A new survey commissioned by the AARP conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates asks respondents to what degree they support or oppose "[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them" -- a public option, in other words. The results are interesting, though not necessarily surprising to those who have been closely following the debate. All: 79 percent favor/18 percent oppose
Democrats: 89 percent favor/8 percent oppose
Republicans: 61 percent favor/33 percent oppose
Independents: 80 percent favor/16 percent oppose
Not only does a public option enjoy strong support (37 percent strongly support such a choice), it enjoys broad support -- a finding based not only in this new survey but also in SurveyUSA polling released last week. Indeed, a supermajority of even Republicans supports a federal program to provide individuals with a choice for their health insurance coverage, with just a third of the party membership opposing such a plan.
So why, again, are supporters of a public option finding such difficulty in Congress?
... just like fighting the war in Afghanistan:
September 1, 2009
CNN Poll: Afghanistan War opposition at all-time high
Posted: September 1st, 2009 02:30 PM ET
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time high in a new national poll.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, with 42 percent supporting the military mission. The percentage of those in opposition to the war is up 11 points since April, and is the highest ever in CNN polling since the launch of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
The poll indicates that opposition to the war is coming mainly from Democrats and independents.
"Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war. Seven in 10 Republicans support what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Democrats mildly opposed the war in April while independents and Republicans favored it. But opposition has grown 18 points among Democrats and 10 points among independents."
And I haven't even begun to talk about economic issues... the half-assed, under-sized stimulus package, the Wall Street CEO bailout package, the failure to pass mortgage bankruptcy law reform...
Oh and the "fierce advocacy front"--not just for GLBTs, but for labor, too! How's EFCA coming? The list goes on and on and on.
Here's a reminder: 1994 wasn't just about the failure to pass health care reform, no matter how often the Versailles media says so. 1994 was about a depressed Democratic base, because Clinton and the Dem Congress failed to deliver on a lot of things--and did deliver on some veryquestionable things--some punitive aspects of their crime bill, and above all, NAFTA.
So, way to go, Versailles Dems! Because at this rate, you will be going. |
STATE BLOGS
